GOD'S WORD?

For most of my life, I believed that the Bible was literally "God's word." First, I thought that the people attributed to writing Scripture had been no more than pens or pencils that God used to write the Bible. Then I believed that God had "inspired" the authors, meaning that they had experienced God, and so they wrote how God worked in their life. Since God had caused the experience of inspiration, each writer told how God is.

I no longer believe either of those ideas. I definitely believe that God continues to work in our lives, and we definitely continue to experience God in our lives. Yet, I believe that all writings about God, whether Scripture, tradition, or otherwise, are actually the author's interpretation or reasoning of how they experienced God in a particular place and time within a particular tradition - all of which are a part of the final product that we read.

How did I arrive at this understanding? The more I studied Scripture, the more I found it to contradict! We have at least TWO creation stories. None of the four Gospels tell the story of Jesus in exactly the same way. Were there one or two angels in the empty tomb or was it one or two young men? Did only one woman go to the tomb or was it multiple? (Must I go on!)

Ultimately, I had to make a decision for myself of whether I believed Scripture contradicted itself or whether God contradicted God's self. I had to believe that God could not contradict God's self, and I could believe that different people contradicted each other in interpreting their own experiences of God.

As I thought about this further, I came to believe that for much of my life I had idolized Scripture, making it "equal" to God since I thought it was "God's word." I have since come to the conclusion that God is so much bigger than the Bible that, ultimately, my faith is in God, not Scripture.

Now, I must make a clarification. I do not see the Bible as God's word, but I do see it as sacred. Yet, it is sacred ONLY because the church has claimed it to be sacred, not because God made it sacred. Therefore, because the church has made it sacred, it is our MOST important document as Christians. Consequently, it DESERVES our continued reading AND study - study including other people: peers, scholars, and commentators.

For more information on this, read Marcus Borg's READING THE BIBLE AGAIN FOR THE FIRST TIME: TAKING THE BIBLE SERIOUSLY BUT NOT LITERALLY.

RELIGION AND POLITICS DON'T MIX?

Really? Are you sure?

I have heard this phrase all my life, and until very recently, I even believed it - until I did a closer study of Scripture.

Let's think about the Exodus. This is about political salvation of the "nation" of Israel - not personal salvation. Slavery is a political issue when it is mandated by the government, which it was in this story. As the story goes, God provided salvation from a political government's oppression. When we look closely at the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, we can see that the law we are told God gives to Moses is a set of laws to guide the "nation" of Israel. "Thou shalt not murder," is no different than the political law provided by the government of the United States today.

When we look at Joshua, we see the Israelite nation claiming the promised land for their own political nation. Judges shows a nation trying to make it under the law of Moses without a human king, and repeatedly, we are told that God has to come rescue the Israelites from political oppression of other nations through a judge. 1 & 2 Samuel shows us the transition from the system of judges with God ruling the nation to having an earthly king - first Saul, then David, and so on. 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles really do not focus on individual people but on the history of the kings of both Israel (the northern kingdom) and Judah (the southern kingdom). Occasionally, we'll see the entrance of a prophet, such as Elijah or Elisha, but their main purpose is to reform the king, the political nation and not the people of the nation.

Many of the psalms are about political need and political conquest, not just personal needs. The prophets are focused, again, on reforming wayward kings who have led the nation into dire straits. The hope is to bring the nation out of its slump and / or exile to be a strong political nation again.

Many will say, "Yeah, but that's the Old Testament. It's different in the New Testament." Well, first of all, are these people saying that the Old Testament is not inspired? Why not just throw it out then? Second of all, we must never forget that Jesus was called the "Messiah" or "Christ," the annointed one to redeem the NATION of Israel!

We must remember that "Messiah" literally means "annointed one." Therefore, every political king that ever sat on the throne of Israel or Judah was a "messiah" because each one was "annointed." If Jesus was the Messiah, we cannot overlook these political connotations that come with the title!

1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest New Testament writing we have, and it probably comes from the hand of the Apostle Paul. Let's look at the first verse of this book:

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace. (NRSV, emphasis added)

We do not realize it today, but "Lord" is a political term on top of being a religious term. It comes from the Greek word kyrios. Caesar Augustus had brought peace to Rome following the civil wars that ensued after the assasination of Julius Caesar. From that time on, emperors of Rome were considered to be gods! One of the titles for these emperors (who were understood to be gods) was kyrios, lord. By Paul calling Jesus, "Lord," Paul is making a political, as well as a religious, statement!

As much as we try to deny it, Jesus was a political figure and some of his concerns were political. For example, let's look at a passage from the sermon on the mount:

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42, NRSV)

Jesus' first statement, "turn the other cheek," has to do with one's social status in the world. In 1st century Judaism, the left hand was considered unclean and could only be used for activities such as wiping oneself. Therefore, in order for someone to hit me on the right cheek, that person MUST back-hand me with the right, because they cannot use the left hand! That is a sign of derision saying, "I'm better than you!" By allowing someone to, then, strike me on the left cheek, I am forcing that person to strike me as an equal. I am declaring that in God's eyes, I am an equal to this person who thinks they are better than me. Some will say, "That's not very political." True, but let's look at the next two statements.

"If someone wants to sue you. . . . " This is a part of the political process allowed by the government. Jesus' response to this statement is to "give them your cloak as well." Why? In Jewish society of the 1st century, it was deemed to be worse to cause someone's nakedness or to see someone's nakedness than be naked. Therefore, Jesus is inviting his hearers to "work the political system" to show one's value and worth!

Similarly, "If someone forces you to go one mile, go also the second!" This, also, has to do with a political situation of the 1st century. Per Roman rule, Roman soldiers could force anyone in the kingdom to carry their pack for one mile, but ONLY one mile. They could be punished for having someone carry it farther than that. Thus, Jesus is, again, asking his hearers to "work the political system." Imagine this picture: A soldier forces a Jewish peasant to carry is pack one mile. After one mile, the peasant keeps going. Knowing that he could be punished, this Roman soldier (who is deemed to be more important than this peasant) has to BEG the lowly peasant to give up the pack. This is known today as "passive resistance." This same type of political resistance has been employed by Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.!

We must also not forget one of the most common phrases on the lips of Jesus: the kingdom of God / heaven. In these instances, Jesus is asking us to choose between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of God. Where does our allegiance really lie? Are we really seeking the furtherance of the kingdom of God or our own kingdoms?

When we really think about it, it is this question that led to the Jewish leaders bringing Jesus before Pilate for sentencing. These leaders used the issue of Jesus calling for proper allegiance to God above Caesar to encourage Pilate to sentence him to death, even if they do stretch the story a bit:

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Luke 23:1-2, NRSV)

Yes, religion and politics do not mix when one's goal is to further the earthly kingdom and not God's kingdom. Yet, if we are truly seeking to be active citizens of God's kingdom, we will properly use politics and other means to further that kingdom. When we are truly member of God's kingdom, politics become a good and useful thing - not a bad thing!

For more insight into this, read Walter Wink's THE POWERS THAT BE: THEOLOGY FOR A NEW MILLENIUM.

A QUESTION OF PARABLES

I find it interesting that people will jump through hoops trying to prove that all of the Bible is 100% accurate historically: creation happened just like in the Bible several thousand years ago (not millions or billions); the Exodus story happened just like "the Bible said;" and / or everything reported about Jesus in the Gospels is true because it's in the Bible.

Here is a problem I have with this line of thinking. First, using creation as an example, there is much evidence to indicate that there are TWO stories of creation in Genesis. The first is Genesis 1:1-2:4a, and the second is 2:4b-2:25. In addition, there is a different version in Job and in the Psalms. Which is correct? The first story in Genesis says that humans were made last of all creation. The second story says that Adam was made first before any other plants or animals (which were created to find a "helper" for Adam). Eve was made last in this story. Which is correct?

Well, I want to pose a thought. Let's think about Jesus. One of the primary ways he taught people were through parables - stories he made up. They were not factual tellings of historical events, they were just FICTIONAL stories. Well, since they WERE fiction, does that mean we should throw them out? Does that mean there is no truth to be found there? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

Here's something that's important to think about. We claim that Scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We also claim that Jesus was inspired by God. If Jesus was indeed inspired by God and taught using fictional parables, who is to say that parts of Scripture that are inspired by God aren't also fictional parables? If they are fiction, does that mean we should throw them out? Does that mean there is no truth to be found there? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

The Bible is, by far, the most important document in the Christian faith, and I believe this wholeheartedly. However, the Bible is NOT God, and God is NOT the Bible. Many people spend so much time trying to "prove" the Bible, that they forget to "prove" God. Think of 1 John 4:12: "No one has ever seen God. But if we love each other, God lives in us, and God's love has been brought to full expression through us." (NLT)

As Christians, we must continue to study and interpret Scripture, but let's spend less time trying to prove the Bible and more time trying to prove God by loving God with everything we have and our neighbors as ourselves. For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14, NLT)

DON'T PUT A QUESTION MARK WHERE GOD PUT A PERIOD?

This is a frustrating phrase for me! I know that people who say this are implying that one should not question "what God said" in the Bible. What is so frustrating, though, is that these are the people who want to take the Bible literally. What they don't realize is that interpretation of Scripture is NOT as easy as is implied by biblical literalists. Please, hear me out...

The Bible was originally written in primarily two languages, Hebrew and Greek (a portion of Daniel was also written in Aramaic). The interesting thing about the ancient versions of these two languages is that there was NO punctuation. Therefore, there are instances in which it is unclear whether the original author was intending to make certain sentences to be questions or statements! Similarly, there are passages in which it is unclear when one speaker in the text has quit speaking and another has started. This is especially a problem in Job and John. Since all of this is the case, we cannot literally say that God definitively put a question mark or a period on many statements (assuming God did "write" the Bible - which I do NOT believe)!